Talk:Kakapo

Old stuff at top of page

I've put most of the information I know about Kakapo on this page. It may seem like a trivial topic to some, but I think they are wonderful animals in dire need of protection. I hope I have maintained neutrality in my contribution, please let me know what you think. Eudyptes

Good work. But do they really create nests, for sleeping and rearing young, high in trees? You could have knocked me over with a kakapo's soft feather when I read that. Nurg 08:57, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of nests in the bottoms of trees, in hollow spaces under the trunk. I've also read discriptions of them living and sleeping higher up. Most of the pictures of nests I've seen can't be placed high or low. Eudyptes 13:19 UTC 18 July 2004

I've been bold and changed the bit about rearing young high in trees. My next question is, can a Polynesian rat really kill an adult kakapo? Can even a black rat kill an adult? I'm sure they can kill chicks, but adults?

Also, is it correct to talk of birds being born? Shouldn't that be hatched? Nurg 08:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good idea about the nesting. I think you're right to be cautious. The Kakapo recovery programme indicates that kiore can kill both adults and eggs, though I'm sure eggs are more vulnerable. Remember that Kakapo don't really have the fighting instinct, they just tend to freeze, rather than fight or flee. As for birds being born, I guess it is more lexically correct to say that they are hatched. I was probably just thinking about the way humans' lives are listed with at birth and death date and I didn't think to change it. By all means, change it if you want, but it doesn't matter to me. Eudyptes 15:42 UTC 19 July 2004

I changed the intro because it was getting clumsy with too many isolated facts. Eudyptes 03:13 UTC 31 July 2004

Comments

• I think this is a well-written and interesting article; good work! It might be worth putting this up as a Featured Article candidate. Some other thoughts: 1) In the "Physical characteristics" section, there seemed to be a number of short sentences which read a bit stilted; could these be tweaked slightly so that the wording flows better? 2) In the breeding section, we suddenly have the sentence, "Consequently, once eggs have been laid in a nest, a nightly watch is instituted to help ensure their safety."; this is the first mention of conservation and is a bit surprising here (though of course relevant); could it be mentioned earlier somehow that nesting is now supervised? 3) The list of all Kakapo seems slightly cumbersome (to me); maybe it could be compressed somehow, or split off into a List of Kakapo? It could be fine, it's just what occurred to me. 4) If there's any way some more photos could be obtained, it would be superb (though clearly this may not be a simple matter for a critically endangered species!) — Matt 02:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • One more thing: 5) "While the Kakapo once had a wide range on the main islands, now only two small islands support the entire population: Te Kakahu o Tamatea (Chalky Island) and Whenua Hou (Codfish Island)" — since we don't have articles on these islands...could we mention where abouts in New Zealand they are located, and roughly how big the islands are? — Matt 02:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input, I think you were right about many things. I addressed concerns 1 though 3 and 5, but I'm not sure how to find pictures of Kakapo that are available in the public domain. It's easy to find them with a Google image search, but I don't want to take them unfairly. Do you know how/when/if it's ok to take a picture off the internet? Eudyptes 20:14 UTC 7 Aug 2004

I think it is definatly a good idea to put this up for a featured article cantidate. If we can bring more attention to these animals they could get an even better supporting plan and recover faster! Blu Pickles 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It already is a featured article. In fact, it has already been the article of the day one time. —msikma (user, talk)

Distance of boom

“The booms can often be heard for up to 16 km”. When the kakapo is using a telephone maybe. Sorry but I can’t believe that statement. I need a reputable reference to consider swallowing that. Here’s some references: Best & Powlesland (1985) “at least 1 km on still nights”; Merton (1985) 5 km; Veitch in Cemmick & Veitch (1987) 7 km; Butler (1989) 5 km. I consider those reputable sources – with the exception of Butler they are all experienced kakapo scientists or field workers. The kakaporecovery.org.nz and DoC websites both say 5 km. Temple & Gaskin (2000), though a lightweight work, is interesting because it says at least a km and up to 5 km down wind. The sources that give 5 or 7 km do not mention wind. Sources that do mention wind, give 1 km without wind assistance. My conclusion is 1 km without wind, 5 km with wind assistance and 7 km in a very strong wind! Nurg 10:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Placenames

I have changed the first instance of the Codfish and Chalky Is placenames to the official names (see LINZ http://www.linz.govt.nz/rcs/linz/pub/web/root/core/placenames/index.jsp ) and subsequently used the shorter form of the official name for Codfish. Nurg 05:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Diverge some sections?

Don't get me wrong, I love this article. It's first expansion was my pet project. I think all the new information is great, but I think the length is keeping it from being featured on the main page. I was wondering what you all might think about diverging some of the content under "History and Decline" and "Recovery" into a separate article. What do you (all) think?

Style problems

There are far too many sentences that begin with prepositional phrases, including paragraphs that consist solely of "In 1954... In 1955... In 1956... etc". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 00:40

Copyvio vs. Fair use?

This article is extensively paraphrased from the Kakapo Recovery Programme webpage. I think it's probably little enough to be under fair use rather than a copyvio, but we might want to spend some time marking more clearly what is directly quoted from them. Any thoughts? --zandperl 00:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Real Word?

Under "Physical description, 4th paragraph" the word "chemosignal" is used. As I had never come across this word I searched for it, Wikipedia didn't have a topic on it, wiktionary didn't have a topic on it, so believing that this may just be an uncommon topic I used two reputable dictionaries to find a deffinition of the word. Neither Cambridge Dictionary nor Oxford Dictionary had an entry under the heading "chemosignal". Could someone (perferrably the person who used the word) confirm it's validity as a word, if it isn't infact a word I will re-write that sentence. -- Faded_Mantis 10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Chemosignals are substances that while not necessarily perceived as odors, nonetheless have an impact on mood and menstrual cycles when absorbed through the nose" according to this article. Moriori 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The term is used widely in scientific literature see this PubMed search, they're kind of like pheromones, but are more specifically related to sex and reproduction.--nixie 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks thats what I was looking for, I wasn't fully sure on the word thats why I didn't start editing it out straight away...looks like I also need a specialist dictionary :) -- Faded_Mantis 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work

Just wanted to say thankyou to everyone who contributed to this article as I enjoyed it very much so. I read about Kakapo previously in a book by Douglas Adams and found both the book and this enjoyable to read. Bawolff 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll second that! --M@rēino 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I was particularly interested to read the bit about them parachuting safely, since Adams, possibly letting whimsy override accuracy, portrayed this as the bird having forgotten it can't fly. This version makes more sense 8-). Daibhid C 14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic

National Geographic Magazine ran an article on animals in New Zealand a few years (2 or 3) ago and had quite a bit on the Kakapo. It mentioned that the bird is the largest and heaviest parrot yet inexplicably omitted any information on how large they get or their weight. Oops!

(Then there was their article on Frankincense where they forgot to include a picture of the tree it's collected from.)

I can top that. In revision of Adolf Hitler article, the introduction never mentioned "World War II" (...only on Wikipedia). Raul654 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Should Frankincense actually include a picture of the tree? I'm skeptical because if someone wants to know about the tree they could visit the tree article (not that the picture is very good, but anyway) Nil Einne 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

HUh

Cool kokapo. though i always thought that it was spelled Cockapoo, or is this a different animal?

That's one of those ridiculous 'designer dog' breeds. Cocker spaniel/poodle mutt. --Sparky Lurkdragon 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea. When you can't spell it looking on google for pictures you end up with a bunch of dogs instead of New Zealand parrots... ^_^

Blu Pickles 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many links

Too many links, don't you think? Why does every word have to be linked. Umm... I guess they changed this back. Weird.

Lek

I thought Lek referred to the behavior, not the location? Lek denotes pleasurable and less rule-bound games and activities, according to the article. So the birds have a lek breeding system not because they gather in areas called leks, but because they gather and engage in lek behavior (mating displays, struggles for dominance, whatever). YggdrasilsRoot 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Lek is the behavior... I thought? Of the mating? EH???? Someone clarify please.

Blu Pickles 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo Caption

the caption of one of these images used to be "Photo of a mature Kakapo on Codfish Island". at the time i took this photo, pura was about 1 year old. since the earliest signs of reproductory behaviour are seen around 5 years of age (see last paragraph of "reproduction"), i don't think this one should be described as being an adult. i'm not sure how much difference there is to a mature kakapo, but there might be one! if you disagree, feel free to change it back. --Mnolf 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wings "break" fall

Under Physical Description it says that the bird's wings "break" its fall, like the bird lands on its wings as a cushion. I changed this to "brake" (slow down).

That's incorrect, actually. A fall is "broken" by something. Dictionary.com describes this too: "18. To lessen the force or effect of: break a fall." function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

kakapo size

does someone can paint a picture like image:Right whale size.png - but for the kakapo? thanks, 88.155.133.223 09:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a comparison image is really worth it. For whales it makes sense because they are so huge. Kakapos may be large birds but i tmight be easier for people to just look at the size and weight text. chris_huh 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks. 88.155.133.223 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made one anyway, dunno if you want to use it, it is Image:Kakapo_size_comparison.png. chris_huh 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

the kakapo voice

Can someone upload to wikipedia audio/video file of kakapo? thanking you in advance, 88.153.140.32 13:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that any such free material exists. There are plenty of videos of the Kakapo around, but they're all non-free, and thus unusable for this article. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, i've recently published recordings of a booming kakapo on my blog, and i'm willing to put them under a free license. the problem is that the files are in mp3-format, and converting them directly to .ogg will reduce quality (right?). it's going to take some time to edit and re-encode from the original, but it's on my to-do-list. --Mnolf 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, doing conversion from one lossy format to another will always cause the loss of quality. But the loss will be a negligible amount, if you simply use the appropriate bitrate. I'm willing to do it for you if you mail the MP3 to me, you can send it to michiel@thingmajig.org if you want me to. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

email was sent. have fun :) and thanks. --Mnolf 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Classification out of lead

I'm thinking the sentences on classification may be better in a section down the page than on the lead (about own genus etc.) and expanded a bit later. I'm not sure they add anything to the lead as such. Cas Liber 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've moved them down. They do seem to be better off down there than in the lead. —msikma (user, talk) 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, it does seem like the section this has created is too small. I think that this should be moved back to the lead unless the "classification" section can be increased in size with important information. It current seems like it's just used to contain some minor remarks. —msikma (user, talk) 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it - the molecular stuff is interesting and the info is needed to balance the article which otherwise is loaded towards conservation (not surprising really given the history). Maybe a bit large to go back in the lead.Cas Liber 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The molecular stuff is unfortunately contradicted by another (earlier) molecular paper (Miyaki et al, see here). More severely, the 2005 scenario is virtually prohibited by the fossil record. Were the spindlin phylogeny true, one would have to assume that all the traits that distinguish living parrots from e.g. the Pseudasturidae (see doi:10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00042.x) in shirt, the parrot morphotype - evolved twice (at least) identically, that Dyck texture was present in all psittaciform ancestors 80+ mya or developed in even more lineages independently but not in the cockatoos, etc. The "review" of the fossil record is probably the lowest point of the 2005 paper (which is otherwise nice); see doi:10.1080/08912960600641224. All the bare facts therein were available one year earlier too; not Mayr & Daniels 1998 but Mayr 2002 (see DOI above) would have been the paper to consider, and that would have shown that the Fig.7 in the 2005 paper is, as far as anyone can currently tell, utter fiction. Dysmorodrepanis 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bulk changes in the Conservation section

In attempt to save this page from de-featured, I have trimmed the section quite markedly. Disscussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kakapo. — Indon (reply) — 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sites

I'm not sure the 4 locations quoted in the 1994 article are current; the recovery site quotes 2. I've emailed the NZ DOC to clarify, but for the time being the more current and official source is probably more accurate. --Peta 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I'll try to find more recent sources from 2006 special issues of Notornis. — Indon (reply) — 08:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated based on Powlesland (2006). — Indon (reply) — 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Section on place of the kakapo in maori culture

I'm kinda surprised there isn't one yet, considering that this is a featured article. I've just acquired some brilliant references which have alot of information in this area so expect to see some major ( but meticulously referenced using footnotes) additions to this article soon. Kotare 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

During Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Kakapo (it's still running), reviewers concerned about the size of Conservation section. I have trimmed the section to save this page as Featured Article. How about creating a new page about it? Then in the Human impacts section, you could make a small summary and point the article with {{see also}} template. I'm afraid if there are major additions to this article not directly related to the subject (about the Kakapo species), then this article will get too large. — Indon (reply) — 09:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll do that (create a new page about it ), after all, there is a seperate page with a list of all the presently alive individual, named kakapo, so another page with additional info. on the species would make sense and as you say, there is a risk of this article getting too big and losing its featured status. Thanks for your helpful and constructive reply. Kotare 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it might fit into the article just fine. We can see if it does after you've made the new page. Afterall, it directly concerns the Kakapo, so I think that perhaps it will be a good addition. The article isn't all that large right now, anyway. —msikma (user, talk) 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK thats a thought, at any rate I'll take the steps suggested by Indon above for now and then we can see take stock and see whether it might be a good addition to the main Kakapo article itself. Kotare 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have made the article, I'll come check around to see if I can help out. Let us know... :) —msikma (user, talk) 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, the article is up>Place of the Kakapo in Maori culture . There is quite alot there - some of it is bloody fascinating, especially the accounts of kakapo preserving berries in pools for future use and the fact that they seem to make good pets. I guess the new content in this article could be integrated into the main Kakapo article but possibly this would require drastic pruning if the Kakapo article is to retain its featured status( though personally I don't know). I don't mind them being seperate articles; if thats what we decide to do I guess the main kakapo page can be linked to it using the templates that Indon suggested. Thanks to both of you for your help, Cheers Kotare 09:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is all about, then I think merging it with the main Kakapo article doesn't harm the main article. A reviewer in Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Kakapo even suggested to add two sections about culture and the origin of the name. I think the best way is to add a new Culture section in this article and merge the new article as subsections of it. Hope it helps. — Indon (reply) — 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a nice article that will fit into the main article without a problem. I'll give it a bit of a copyedit later, and then I'll merge it if that hasn't already been done by then. —msikma (user, talk) 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've done some basic copyediting on that new article, but I think that it needs more work before it should be merged. The style of the writing is different, and needs to be altered to have a bit more native English flow. Then there's still a bit of wikification and reference formatting to be done. —msikma (user, talk) 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Righto, I've made some final additions of new bits of info to the Place of the Kakapo in Maori culture article as well as beefing up the referencing and adding some internal links. Perhaps my wording could be simplified in some places, whatever, as long as its in the best interests of the article- my only concern is that the basic information which I've spent hours accessing from books and websites is preserved. If someone merges it now, the large number of users monitoring the kakapo article itself will probably divert their attention to any problems with this new section and make appropriate edits- it should kind of take care of itself.. focussing on sorting out any issues the article has ( if any ) now and then merging it might take longer. If its merged, it may well be easier just have the section heading as " Kakapo in maori culture" rather than "Place of the kakapo in maori culture".. my original name for that article is probably a bit wordy. Kotare 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible merge of articles "Kākāpō in Māori culture" into "Kakapo"

Given the comments of Mskima and Indon above and the recommendations of one of the featured article reviewers that a section on culture relating to this bird be included in the main Kakapo article, I think the best course will be to merge the "Kākāpō in Māori culture" article into this one - Does anyone disagree with this?? ( thoughts? issues?) Kotare 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it require adding inflections to this article? This article is one of the few New Zealand bird articles where we use a Maori loanword without using them.

Setriously though, perhaps it would be better to create an article Birds in Māori culture and merge it there? Many birds were very important, like the Hawakai (snipes) and the like. It would be a usefule article that could be linked to in the various birds species articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Making one article to contain information about birds in Māori culture does seem like it may be the best idea. That way, it would be one rather large and informative article that could be referred to from this article (rather than merged). E.g.

=== Kakapo in Māori culture ===
<Explain significance of birds to the Maori in general, then explain the position of the Kakapo in Maori culture.>
:Further information: Birds in Māori culture

I think that this would be the most valuable option to a couple of articles. —msikma (user, talk) 06:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought this was a good idea at first .. But the "Kākāpō in Māori culture" article contains information which is very specific towards the kakapo and I can only see it having a place under a "Kakakpo" heading in such an article. To organise the information in such an article you'd want individual sections for a large number of other NZ native birds with prominent places in maori culture - ( Huia, Hakawai, Kokako etc etc).. I think there's just too much information in this area for it to all be lumped into one page ( Very little info in this area is actually up on wikipedia now but this is talking long term in working towards getting all that information onto wikipedia). I think the best place for information specific to a individual NZ bird species, as regards their place in maori culture, is the original article for that species. More general info. as regards Birds in Māori culture could be put in the new article proposed- if you look closely there is just so much information on the place of birds in maori culture.. I guess I'm questioning whether its realistic to try and fit it all on one page.Kotare 07:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

hey, can we please continue the discussion to work out what to do? (Did i say somethning wrong?!) Kotare 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I just wasn't bothered enough one way or the other - new article or merging - either works. The only reason for keeping them separate is if there is a species that has too many legends it could swamp the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh mint. Just being cautious seeing as this is a featured article. I'm going to merge it now. Kotare 07:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's never really a reason to not be bold and just make certain changes, but I do think that the article could have had a bit more copyediting before merging. For example, it uses "Kākāpō" whereas this article uses the plain English "Kakapo". I'll try to see if I can integrate it a bit better. —msikma (user, talk) 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions over reverted edit

Msikma; You have done alot of very good work on wikipedia and for this page itself.. however: looking back to when you reverted my edit at the beginning of the "ecology and behaviour" section, i think that was unfair; its not a matter of opinion as to which passage is better written, the previous passage which you revived simply doesn't make sense, here is what is there now:

" and it seems that Kakapo have adapted to fill the niches that mammals occupy in other parts of the world"

- organisms do not occupy multiple ecological niches, they occupy only one each and this also suggests that kakapo have evolved not only to occupy multiple ecological niches but that they occupy those of all mammals in other parts of the world. My edit clarifed all this:

"and it seems that the Kakapo - like many species of New Zealand bird- has evolved to occupy an ecological niche which elsewhere in the world is filled by various species of mammal".

I also don't see whats wrong with specifiying "ecological niche" as if you simply say "niche" anyone without a decent biology education will not know what you are talking about and finally I'm pretty sure "evolve" is actually the right word .Evolve: "..to develop by natural processes" ( Oxford dictionary), the word "adapted" suggests some brief changes to situation, not the cumulative result of thousands of years of natural selection.

If you've read this please give feed back so this matter can be resolved. Kotare 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't very much understand the edit that you made and thought that it was simply a rewrite of the old sentence with the exception of the word "evolve", which I thought could exclusively be used for physical changes that warrant a new species. I don't have a biology degree, so I guess that it's easy to be wrong then. :-) Sorry for that, I'll put back in the revised sentence you made. —msikma (user, talk) 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah no worries dude :)Kotare 08:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Last issues

I felt this was within criteria and that with Indon working it could be kept ("Kakapo are able to run at a fair speed" was the one throw-away line that definitely needed changing). As for the remainder:

• "...but feral cats were present. It was apparent that cats killed Kakapo with a predation rate of 56% per annum.[26] At this rate, the birds could not have survived in the 100 years after the first introduction of cats to the island. It turned out that the cats had learned how to kill the birds." What is this trying to say? That they learned to kill them, but late enough in the game that they weren't all wiped out? That the cats arrived later? I inserted a buried question on this one.
• I did not find the image issue an FA deal-breaker—unless for some weird reason a four or seven foot human being was chosen, a viewer can broadly grasp the size of the bird. User:Chris huh is editing still if someone would like to post him a note.
• There's a buried concern that "we can tell the sympathy is with the Kakapo" in the human impact section. I don't find this particularly egregious either, but we might want to source "From at least the 1870s, collectors knew the Kakapo population was declining; their prime concern was to collect as many as possible before they became extinct", as it's generalization.

Otherwise, bang-up work from many. Marskell 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First issue is resolved. The statements were directly taken from the source that the article says that feral cats arrived around 1882 in the island. A survey indicated that the predation rate is 58% per annum, which means that by 1982 there shouldn't be Kakapo left in the island. So it is concluded that the cats learned how to kill the bird, because Kakapo were still available in 1982. I have reworded the paragraph to avoid this confusion by saying that a measure was taken due to high predation rate in the island, which were the intensive cat control & moving all remaining Kakapo to another islands. Hope it suffices. — Indon (reply) — 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Second issue is temporarily resolved by hidding it. I don't know whether size comparison is necessary for this article, as Kakapo is a parrot then it should be common for readers for its size. — Indon (reply) — 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I never really saw the point of the Kakapo size comparison image. Compared to the "average human"? How tall is the average human? Is the comparison in the picture truly scientific, or simply illustrative? It seemed like just a picture used to spice up the page a little, but it didn't look that good anyway. It's better off not being in the article. If possible, it may be replaced with a photo of a Kakapo compared to some object in the future, as it seems there are a few people here who have been able to make free photos of them. —msikma (user, talk) 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That's why I hid the picture. — Indon (reply) — 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In Maori culture

I have renamed the section written by Kotare "In Maori culture" (the original Māori, has been simplified to Maori for ease of reading, as it appears multiple times in the article, much like the word Kakapo itself) and given it a bit of a copyedit. I've commented out two sections, one because I feel it's not really important enough for inclusion (the Kakapo legend--it's very interesting, and I enjoyed reading it, but I think that it's not necessary to understand the place of Kakapo in Maori culture; it should have some sort of importance to the subject matter), and another part because it was a little ambiguous. I'm still not entirely happy about the section. It needs a few more modifications. Here's what I think should be done:

• Some claims about the Maori culture aren't explained very well. For example, Kakapo were sometimes killed for breaking into storages of fern root. This is mentioned in just one sentence, which fails to explain the least of context. What kind of storage was it? What is "fern root"? How did their breaking in cause moisture to appear? Explaining some of these things would make it much more obvious what the article is trying to explain. It also should convey exactly why this is important enough to mention. Perhaps lots of other animals broke into such storages; why is it necessary that we mention the Kakapo's doing so?
• Some claims use "weasel words". While there's a valid source for every claim, uninteresting or dubious language is sometimes used. "It has been said that", or "some have noted that" could usually be rewritten to something much more decisive. An encyclopedia should contain valid and verifiable information; if it does, there is no need to use "careful" language. This is mostly a matter of copyediting.
• I think it is too specific. The abstract of the article (at the top) mentions this: "The conservation of the Kakapo has made the species well known. Many books and documentaries detailing the plight of the Kakapo have been produced in recent years." - why not write about these things as well? The section as it is right now could later be a part of a bigger "In culture" section, which also explains how the Kakapo has also been featured in modern culture in recent years.

Most of these things can be fixed up relatively easily, I think. The section is pretty good, but it kind of lacks the strong and stable prose that the rest of the article has at this moment. —msikma (user, talk) 09:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reversed some of the changes you made to restore the accepted spelling in NZ articles, and also to restore direct links to some of the articles linked. I will leave it to Kotare and others to address the other points you mention Kahuroa 11:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to write "Māori", when we can also simplify it to "Maori"? The name of the Kakapo has also been simplified. I believe that, for reader clarity, it's probably the best idea to use the simplified version, unless a certain word appears only once or twice in the text (I left "Hāngi" intact, for example). It seems that on the Internet, most sources use the non-accented version as well. —msikma (user, talk) 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in New Zealand and hardly ever see the inflected versions of Maroi words. I've never quite been able to establish why we use them on Wikipedia for the English language wiki (when using English words derived from Maori, as opposed to a strictly Maori word). I agree they should be avoided for Kakapo, Maori, Kaka, Kereru, but good luck getting anywhere with that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more a matter of clarity. I'm not sure if there's anything in the MOS about it. I'll check it out later. But generally, it might be a bit easier on the reader to use simplified versions of a word if they are widespread and will be used in the article a lot of times. "Maori", without accents, is a pretty established word in itself, I believe. It's not such a big deal anyway. —msikma (user, talk) 20:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done some digging, and this appears to be the relevant page: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English). —msikma (user, talk) 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For why we use the spelling Māori, see Talk:Māori language#Requested move. Kahuroa 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, if this is typical NZ spelling, then I guess that's definitely a reason to keep on using the accented Māori. But, then why are we using "Kakapo" instead of "Kākāpō"? Is it because the word "Kakapo" is extremely widespread and even used on the official NZ website? —msikma (user, talk) 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not as typical as some suggest (particularly in that poll you cited). The arguments made in that discussion are rather fatuous. My morning copy of the Dominion Post doesn't use them, nor does the New Zealand Herald, DOC, journal articles by the Royal Society of New Zealand or Notornis. Moreover,and this is the kicker for me, one of the votes —Māori is the form NZ is moving toward and is recommended by the Māori Language Commission: 'It is especially important that the distinction – between long and short vowel length be marked – in the same way, all of the time. The Commission believes that the macron is the most efficient means of marking long vowel length, and advocates the use of this marker in all but a handful of cases' [1], misses the boat completely. The first sentence, the first, states, clear as day, The following is a set of writing conventions that the Mäori Language Commission recommends be observed by writers and editors of Mäori language texts. . Maori language texts. Not English texts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Partly because Māori is a lot more common in article titles than Kākāpō... let sleeping Kākāpō lie and all that. Hope no one reopens this can of worms, but whatever Kahuroa 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally think that we should follow with whatever is more common in NZ spelling. If what Sabine's Sunbird says is true, then maybe the unaccented Maori is better—but that's something that should be requested in some kind of process. At this point, it's probably best to keep on using the accented Māori and the unaccented Kakapo. —msikma (user, talk) 19:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The conventions for article titles are spelled out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Māori words which would appear to apply here. Kahuroa 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't that Māori isn't used, it's that Maori is also used here as commonly as Māori. I was rather getting the wrong end of the stick though, it wasn't the macrons on Māori that was bothering me, it was the idea that Kakapo would be changed. I never see Kakapo macroned. Is macroned a word? It is now. Anyway, best to leave Māori alone. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While there are some interesting points being given here, I'd argue there are more important things at hand. :) I'll see if I can expand the "Culture" section a bit more with some views from outside of the Maori culture. —msikma (user, talk) 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this discussion was my fault - I should have linked to the convention when I changed Maori back to Māori. Kahuroa 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes/reverted edits to "in Maori culture" section

I have just reverted some edits to the “(Kakapo) In Māori culture” section and made some other changes, I don’t want to annoy anyone, so here are my justifications:

1. Reverted :“As the Kakapo were generally considered to be good nourishment” to “As the meat of Kakapo was considered to be good eating” - this is more specific, makes it clear that the meat is what was valued and the maori considered it good eating/delicious, acknowledging it’s nutritional value is something different.

2. For hunting for food and clothing section:

• reverted “As well as eating the birds they killed” to As well as eating the meat of the Kakapo they killed” because this makes it clear what part of the bird was eaten ( they didn’t eat the whole bird, beak and all)
• Reverted deletion of (referenced) text detailing how many feathers were needed to make one Kakapo cloak – this is important because it suggests that many kakapo would have to have been hunted to make one such a garment and also that they took an immense amount of work to create.
• Reverted deletion of (referenced) text talking about why they were considered valuable ( beauty and warmth) and reverted deltion of the proverb related to the value of these cloaks – all this info effectively serves to explain the importance of this kakapo product in maori culture and thus the importance of the Kakapo in Maori culture in general.

3. Hungry Kakapo were not "reportedly hunted for being a nuisance when breaking into maori food stores", they were reported as being a nuisance for doing so. In the first incarnation of this section I had suggested this might be a reason for them being hunted but this was just my speculation and shouldn’t have been put it- my bad, sorry.

This article is looking fantastic now, there's some research about to begin on what the chemical cues for kakapo breeding are which could provide interesting additional material for it in future.Kotare 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the things that I had removed earlier were due to the fact they seemed a bit too in-depth to be encyclopedic. I do understand your comments, though, and think that it's okay to leave the information in. I've given the section a bit of a copyedit, and I think it's pretty much done. But it would still be nice if the points that I mentioned earlier could be looked into, to some degree (some parts could be explained a bit more thoroughly--there's a bit high "cited fact to lecture" ratio) to make the whole a bit easier to read and to ensure that the reader cannot have any remaining questions afterwards. Also, it would be best if we could explain the culture of the Kakapo from a bit more generic point of view, since it has also become modestly popular in modern times. There are also still some weasel words which may need to be removed in the long term. Anyway, I think that the information that is there right now is great. —msikma (user, talk) 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did remove one part about the Kakapo breaking into food storages. I think it should be added back in, but I don't know where to put it (I removed it because it seemed a bit out of place, being the only sentence about Kakapo being a nuisance among a text that was only about them as being used as food and them being used for clothing). Maybe there are some other examples you can give of the Kakapo being annoying to the Maori? That way, it would be more well-placed. —msikma (user, talk) 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Islands

There were 4 islands, and 2 of them were wrong. So I fixed it up. ^_^ Your welcome everyone!

Blu Pickles 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder, though: the original version had a reference. You did not change it. So that means that the reference that was cited for the wrongful information in reality contains the correct information? If not, what is your source for stating that it was wrong? Some explanation would be nice. —msikma (user, talk) 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Currently, the Kakapo is said to be in the family Psittacidae, and the subfamily Psittacinae. I'm currently reading through "A parrot apart: the natural history of the kakapo (Strigops habroptilus), and the context of its conservation management", and its chapter on taxonomy states that it is in the subfamily Strigopinae. Verbatim, "[...] but Smith (1975) used anatomical, morphological and ethological characters to place it in the endemic New Zealand subfamily Strigopinae, which has usually been followed since (Turbott 1990)." It then goes to explain the similarities between the Kea and the Kaka, and does not actually state the Psittacinae subfamily. I'm wondering about this: at the very least, it seems that a bit more discussion on the taxonomic groups this bird belongs to would be well-placed. —msikma (user, talk) 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the case with alot of birds where the new taxonomic stuff shows a marked difference with current accepted practice. Best to leave a note on WP Birds and discuss it there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea since I'm confused now and there don't seem to be too many people actively monitoring this article anymore. I'll try there. Thanks! —msikma (user, talk) 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Heather's egg

would it be possible to add details about the egg that Heather laid? In epilogue of the book Last Chance to See, it is stated that a female Kakapo named Heather laid an egg, which was a very good sign. However, I seem to recall reading in a New Scientist article a few years later that the egg did not hatch. I'm afraid I do not have the magazine anymore, so I cannot post any references. However, does someone have the information to hand? If so, could it be added, as I am sure this would be noteworthy enough for inclusion in this article? StephenBuxton 12:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientific name for kakapo

Currently there're two scientific name using right now, one is from BirdLife & IUCN:Strigops habroptila[2], and the other one is widely used everywhere even in our article:Strigops habroptilus, which one is correct ?--Lokionly (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

According to ITIS Strigops habroptila is correct. Something to do with the gender of Strigops. Explained here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving the page

Greetings. Sort of new to Wikipedia here. I created a redirect to Kakapo parrot recently and then noticed that the page was moved to Kakapo. I tried looking through the edit history to find out when this happenened but couldn't find it. Anyone know when this happened, or how i could find out when it happened? ihatefile007 (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. This page has always been titled "Kakapo", according to the logs. You created a redirect to it from "Kakapo parrot" in June, and no one else has edited or otherwise changed that redirect.-gadfium 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're correct. Sorry for the confusion. ihatefile007 (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This article is listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing as being one of our most problematic featured articles: unless there is an effort to clean it up, it should be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have notified WikiProject:Birds on their talk page, so hopefully the page will get a bit of a clean up . Snowman (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, went through it and cleaned up. let me know nif I missed anything. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lifespan?

The only mention of the birds' lifespan is "Because Kakapo are quite long-lived, they tend to have an adolescence before beginning breeding." But how long-lived are they??

(doesn't know how to type a whistling sound) According to BirdLife International's Rare Birds Yearbook, 90 on average, with the maximum estimated at 120. I'll put it on in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems awfully generous, considering that a span of 90–120 years would make it the world's longest-living bird! AnAge and ADW have more coservative estimates of up to 60 years. Yet perhaps the high estimate isn't altogether unreasonable: many parrots are long-lived and larger species tend to live longer than smaller ones – and Kakapo is the world's largest parrot. One must wonder, though, how justified or accurate that estimate can really be. The oldest undisputed age for a bird was 78+ years for an Andean Condor named Kuzya of the Moscow Zoo (arrived with adult plumage in 1892, died in 1964), also, Thaao (b. 1930) of Connecticut's Beardsley Zoo was still alive at at least 77. Guinness accepts a claim of an 80-year-old Sulphur-crested Cockatoo named Cocky (d. 1982 at the London Zoo), but the 24 first years of its life are unaccounted for. The oldest age for a parrot featured in AnAge (as far as I know) was 65.8 years for a captive Moluccan Cockatoo. And Charlie is simply a fraud. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence

The sentence: "This long delay before they start to reproduce leaves plenty of time to perpetuate the species." is unclear and possibly contradictory. The surrounding sentences do not clear it up.

It seems unclear to me too, and unnecessary. I've deleted it. -- Avenue (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Does someone know where to find the total number of kakapo's for a specific year, so that I can redo the population diagram? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a single source, but I think we have compiled enough information here to extend the graph to the present. -- Avenue (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So. lets make a list then:

• 1986: 22 ?
• 1987:
• 1988:
• 1989:
• 1990:
• 1991: 50 ?
• 1992: 49 ?
• 1993: 49 ?
• 1994: 48 ?
• 1995: 49 ?
• 1996: 51 ?
• 1997: 53 ?
• 1998: 54 ?
• 1999: 61 ?
• 2000: 61 ?
• 2001: 61 ?
• 2002: 86
• 2003: 86
• 2004: 86
• 2005: 86
• 2006: 86
• 2007: 86
• 2008: 90
• 2009: 125

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added figures from the existing chart ([3]). It is difficult to be sure of the exact figures from the graph, but I think these are probably within one of the intended figure. It would be good to track down a source for these numbers.

Also, before we go much further, there are some issues I think would be worth clarifying first.

1. Are we talking about populations at the end of the calendar year? (The figure of 90 shown above for 2008 suggests so; the figure was higher from April to late October.) This seems sensible, given that chicks usually hatch around late summer.
2. Do the counts only include birds transplanted off the main islands? That's the only sensible interpretation I can think of for the 1986 figure of around 22 birds, given that 30 birds were taken off to Codfish Island between 1987 and 1992 (and another 31 had been transplanted before 1986). Is this appropriate, or should we include estimates of the remaining wild population?
3. How should we indicate uncertainty about the population? For instance, the table at the beginning of the Kakapo recovery plan section shows that 41–55 transplanted birds survived as of November 1992. Plotting just a single number seems misleading here. This is not just ancient history; one of these birds was only rediscovered in March 2009.

Can anyone see any other difficulties? -- Avenue (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

kakaporecovery.org.nz has a good chart here (bottom of page): [4] XLerate (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. That takes care of my second point. -- Avenue (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then i will make an upodated grph for wikipedia this weekend.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't let me slow you down — anything based on that chart will be vastly better than what we have now. But my third point is still unanswered, and I think it needs to be addressed somehow. The Stewart Is kakapo population, when it was found in 1977, apparently numbered "about 200" birds,[5] but the kakaporecovery.org.nz chart only shows 150. The only indication of uncertainty there is the "greater than" sign preceding the total, and these don't appear from 1983 on. It seems quite misleading to me. It needs a strong caveat at least, e.g. "Except in recent years, these numbers are very imprecise." -- Avenue (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the new image, and indicated that the first years are minimum numbers. I added also red arrows to show breeding years. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the new plot - that's a big improvement. But the numbers for the first years are not minimums, as far as I can tell. For instance, Powlesland et al (2006) put the 1977 Kakapo population on Stewart Is at 100–200, but the kakaporecovery.org.nz chart shows around 150. The uncertainty remains substantial later, too; e.g. the 41–55 surviving transplanted birds in 1992. So I've changed the caveat accordingly. -- Avenue (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There were 120 kakapo as of January 2011. (Source : http://www.kakaporecovery.org.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=57&Itemid=430) Let's hope the eight females that nested this Febuary bring numbers up with healthy chicks. There are 10 eggs still alive according to the Kakapo Nesting Table. Correjon (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To any who have edited this article:

I just saw a clip of Stephen Fry and a Kakapo on the BBC website, and I came here to find out more as I'd never heard of a Kakapo before. Thought I'd say well done to whoever has edited this article as it was very informative. These are quite extraordinary creatures, so sad they're endangered. 86.155.7.149 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

External link?

Is this worth putting in - 860,000+ hits on Youtube in a fortnight - the now infamous clip of zoologist Mark Carwardine's encounter with a kakapo, with Stephen Fry? The Youtube BBC video 81.156.175.199 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the BBC page with a link to the clip BBC page. The event has already been parodied on a TV show in the UK (Harry Hill's TV Burp) - here's the Youtube link [6]. 81.156.175.199 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't give any significant information about kakapo, so I would say not.-gadfium 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it warrants a mention. The bird became internationally known because of that video. --68.95.129.174 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet fame is not the same as "internationally known," though it's only a matter of time before this article, like almost every other wikipedia page, has an "In popular culture" section. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.84.96 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bass mating calls?

Douglas Adams said that the bass sound the male kakapo makes while mating makes it nearly impossible for the female to find him. Is it true? 67.243.7.245 (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it. His mate Cawardine said that the bass range was effective because it wasn't used by any of the other birds in the forest whose calls fill the rest of the sound spectrum. Kahuroa (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sirocco the Kakapo - worth a mention?

Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia so my apologies if I get anything wrong! I work for the Department of Conservation in New Zealand, and work closely with the Kakapo Recovery Team. I also manage our social media presence, a lot of which is focussed on Sirocco, the kakapo featured in Last Chance to See.

I added a brief paragraph to the Wikipedia kakapo article, as I often get messages from people asking why Sirocco isn't mentioned. The programme is still being shown around the world, so we'll get bursts of people signing up to Sirocco's Facebook page from, most recently for example, Iceland then Norway.

My paragraph was removed, but I'm not really sure why? I've seen the discussion earlier on this page about whether or not Sirocco should be mentioned, and there's a suggestion that 'internet fame' isn't enough (which is a fair point). However, Sirocco is starting to be recognised around the world through the TV programme, and people want to find out more about him. The fact that he was named 'Official Spokesbird for Conservation' by NZ Prime Minister John Key earlier this year may also be something worth mentioning? Some may see it as a joke, but the role has brought a lot more people closer to the plight of the kakapo, and endangered species in general.

My main point though is that people want to find out more about Sirocco, and ask me why he's not on Wikipedia. Personally I thought I was justified in adding one paragraph because of this - I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Pitt (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I argued above that such a trivial incident was not appropriate to include in the article, but I am no longer sure of that. If the incident is still receiving coverage a year later, as shown through signups to his Facebook page, and if this is now one of the most widely known portrayals of kakapo, then it should be covered in the article.-gadfium 22:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there third party sources still covering it? Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Would Sirocco warrant a separate article rather than risk adding what is in effect an "In popular culture" section to this article? Kahuroa (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure about the best procedure: the recent attempt to add information about Siroco is clearly very different from the rash of excited commentary when the incident first occurred, yet it is rarely helpful to include what is essentially trivia in a science article. In particular, the link http://www.facebook.com/siroccokakapo is difficult because it does not satisfy the external link guidelines, and it is not a reliable source and so cannot be used as a reference for information added to the article. The article probably needs a little restructuring with the long "The conservation of the Kakapo..." paragraph in the lead being replaced by a much shorter summary, with the content from the existing paragraph moved to a new section under "Conservation" (perhaps 4.5 "Public recognition"). I would be happier with a brief statement about Siroco if it were not in the lead of the article. The idea of making a separate article would be ideal if there is sufficient sourced material to satisfy the notability requirement. Perhaps Chris Pitt would like to comment on the new article idea (which would be mentioned in this article under "See also"). The Facebook link would be suitable on an article dedicated to Siroco, but the article would have to follow normal encyclopedic guidelines (it couldn't be chatty in the style of the Facebook page). Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sirocco's page at the Kakapo Recovery Programme website would be usable I think. Kahuroa (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments...it's amazing what goes on behind the scenes of Wikipedia, who would have thought! So - it looks like two options are emerging - either re-instating a paragraph or so about Sirocco in the main article, but in a new section; or creating a new page dedicated to Sirocco. I'm happy to do either of those - I'll leave this for a couple of days to allow other thoughts/preferences, then will get on with it! Many thanks. Chris Pitt (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you choose a new article, I suggest starting with a list of reliable sources that you could use. Post that list somewhere (perhaps here, or on your talk page, and add a link here to your talk page, like this example). That is, do not bother with an article draft until you let a couple of experienced editors comment on the sources – that would save a lot of trouble, because without sources acceptable by Wikipedia standards any new article would be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi - thanks again for the advice. Okay, for the article on Sirocco, I'd base the bulk of the information on Sirocco's 'biography' on the Kakapo Recovery Team website, which is the authority on all things kakapo: Kakapo Recovery Team website. There are various news sites which have covered Sirocco's 'rise to fame', and these could be added as links. For example the London newspaper Metro covered Sirocco's appointment as official Spokesbird to the NZ Government Sirocco as Spokesbird Metro; plus there's a strong and quite touching piece about Sirocco, and his 'rock star' appearance at Auckland Zoo in 2009 on the respected NZ news magazine programme Campbell Live: Sirocco on Campbell Live. There are other links I could use on a similar theme, but I think these cover the basic details both about Sirocco himself, and his 'fame'. I'd welcome feedback on these suggestions before I attempt to write the article! Thanks again, Chris Pitt (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

They look fine, especially as you are basing the article on a reliable source. A couple of others to consider as links (there's no shortage) include Stuff and DOC's Conservation Blog Kahuroa (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. If you want to take it slowly (probably a good idea), you could start a draft in your userspace (for example, click this redlink User:Chris Pitt/Sirocco the Kakapo and enter some text, preview and save). When ready, the page should be moved (not copied) into article space (if wanted, ask for help). I don't think you need to be told that the problem will be keeping enthusiastic gossip out of the page, but there is no need to be overly coy in describing the incident. To be kept, the article will have to satisfy notability. The best procedure is to add information from several different sources (but not all describing the same thing); there will need to be more coverage than just the mating incident (and it would be interesting if you could find a reliable source offering explanations for that incident). Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi all - okay, the page is written! I've moved it, and it's now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirocco_the_Kakapo. I checked my first draft and received advice about putting more references in, and I've done that. Hopefully now it's in shape! Any thoughts will be welcome; also, when/how does the page become visible in the Wikipedia (and external) search engines? Do I need to do something? Many thanks as ever, Chris Pitt (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I added some categories, and linked to it from a few other articles. You can use Special:WhatLinksHere/Sirocco (Kakapo) to see links. You might also be interested in the number of page views, but it will take a few days before the tallies show up.

This would probably qualify for an entry in the Did you know section of the front page. Could someone more experienced than me in making such nominations please consider this.-gadfium 07:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it here. --Avenue (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As a regular with DYKs, I can tell you that it's an excellent contribution for that page. But technically, the nomination has been left too late (it needs to be nominated within 5 days of an article appearing in mainspace, and it's been 7). Technically, it should have been nominated under the heading 22 October, and not 28 October (for future reference). A way out of this is the additional rule D9. I'll comment on DYK and bring it to other editor's attention, as the additional rules aren't widely known. Schwede66 02:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This has already been sorted out on the DYK page, but briefly, it was not too late because it was only moved from userspace to mainspace on 28 October. (See additional rule D8.) --Avenue (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Great; the article is about to go onto the homepage and Sirocco is the lead hook. As it's a rather interesting hook, and given that the lead hook is accompanied by a photo, it's almost a given that it will attract sufficient views (i.e. over 5,000) to be added to the DYK statistics page. Schwede66 18:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's scheduled to go live at midnight UK time, or 8pm in New York, and will only be up for six hours, so the timing might not be ideal for lots of views. I guess we'll see. --Avenue (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And in case you wonder, that's 1 pm to 7 pm New Zealand time on Sunday. Schwede66 04:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It gathered over 10,000 views yesterday, compared to around 30 in each of the preceding days - not bad. I've added it to the DYK stats page. --Avenue (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kakapo versus Kākāpō

I'm wondering whether Kakapo is the right name for this article. Shouldn't it be Kākāpō, according to the New Zealand naming convention for Māori words? Schwede66 05:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Macrons might be appropriate if the thing was known by its English name and we were giving it its Maori name as well, (for example the The New Zealand Pigeon or kererū ) but the widespread English name for the species is Kakapo, not Kākāpō. I fully support using Maori words in English (particularly when the words are nicer than the English words, which they often are for birds) and the promotion of te reo, but WikiProject New Zealand's insistence that Maori loanwords keep macrons seems inconsistent with general usage in NZ. Also Wikiproject Birds avoids any diacritical marks (following the convention set by the IOC world bird list) except in the case of patronyms (example Böhm's Bee-eater). Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are conflicting guidelines at play here. I think the cited sources predominantly omit macrons, which is another factor supporting that approach, although DoC now seems to prefer macrons.[7] --Avenue (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

E haere rā Richard Henry

At the age of (?) the last surviving Fiordland Kakapo died today. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)